It started out as a slow afternoon in the San Jose courtroom where Apple and Samsung have been battling out a high-profile patent infringement case. The jury seemed to be nodding off, and a Samsung lawyer briefly flashed an image of source code meant for the jury’s eyes only. But the two witnesses to take the stand for Apple had some interesting comments about the way Apple licenses its intellectual property—it doesn’t.

Boris Teskler, director of patent licensing strategy at Apple, testified at around 4pm today, saying that Steve Jobs and Tim Cook complained to Samsung when the Korean company introduced phones that looked and acted so similarly to the iPhone in 2010. Apple then exhibited a presentation to the jury that it allegedly gave to Samsung in 2010 before any legal action was taken. The presentation detailed the patents Apple believed Samsung was infringing upon.

When asked what Apple’s position on licensing this portion of its portfolio was, Forbes reported that Teskler testified, “It’s Apple’s position not to [license]… keeping in mind Apple does not want anyone to build a clone product. “

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case, in which both Samsung and Apple are allotted 25 hours to make their cases. Apple asked witness Dr. John Hauser, a professor of marketing at the MIT Sloan School of Management, about a survey he conducted to determine the value of the features that Samsung allegedly infringed, but let the witness describe only his findings without asking him about methodology.

Samsung’s lawyers thought spending time to question Apple’s witness about his methodology seemed unfair, but when they objected, Judge Lucy Koh overruled. Hauser’s report estimated that users would pay a $100 price premium for smartphone features and a $90 premium for tablet features “associated with the patents at issue in this case.” Apple then let Samsung grill Hauser about how exactly he came up with those numbers.

"Hauser was taken to task for only showing what customers might be willing to pay for Apple’s patented features even though the same study could have also offered a price for other things such as cameras, storage, and other features," AllThingsD reported. And weighing the importance of other features without corresponding Apple patents might bring Hauser's number down quite a bit, Samsung lawyers said.

By the end of the day, the judge announced that Apple had used 11 hours and 35 minutes of its time in the case, while Samsung has used 12 hours and 16 minutes, the Mercury News reports. Samsung will have to use whatever remains after Apple presents to argue its own case.

Update: A presentation made public Friday evening revealed that Apple offered to license some of its portfolio of patents to Samsung in October 2010 for $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet. When Samsung refused and made its own license-free devices, Apple gave Samsung a presentation, noting that "[b]ecause Samsung is a strategic supplier to Apple, we are prepared to offer a royalty-bearing license for this category of device."

Apple also offered a 20 percent discount on the royalties if Samsung would cross-license its patents with Apple.

Promoted Comments

Exclusivity leads to stagnation, IP should work on the basic rule that at the very least an IP can be used and or sold at a cost of 60-80% of profit generated. The IP owner gets payed and there is little to no stagnation.

It's actually a bit funny this was posted today. A few hours ago, I was considering whether the lawsuit might just be an attempt on Apple's part to strong arm Samsung into a cross-licensing agreement similar to the one with Microsoft.

Apple wants to be able to say they make products so good everyone copies them. This was an extremely annoying line of frequently parroted evangelism of the Mac platform well into the late 90's with respect to Windows 3.x / 9x.

On the other hand, Apple probably needs a good chunk of Samsung's IP related to the AXX series processors in order to take their business to TSMC. Starting with a stock ARM design plus their half of the Intrinsity optimizations would put them years behind in development even if they had started before 2 years ago when they bought Intrinsity.

Are there any lawyers in the house to comment on the 25 hour allotment for each side? It's a curious bit of detail I hadn't run across before. I know allotments are common, but I am interested in the amount in this case relative to similar magnitude cases.

Apple has no reason in the world to license iPhone-related patents and they are not legally obligated to do so since there is no FRAND basis for any of them. Samsung will be found guilty, I'm quite certain.

So what methodology was used? The guy asked people how much less they'd be willing to pay for ipads if they didn't look like samsung electronic photo frames with a rubber banding effect when they scrolled to the end of something and they said they'd only be willing to part with $410 rather than the regular $500?

Why would Apple want to license when they can sue their competitors out of the market, create a monopoly, and reap even larger profits?

This is like saying water is wet. You only voluntarily license patents if you think you can get more money from their licensing than you could from your own products that use those patents. Seeing the profit margins on the iPhone and the iOS ecosystem, Apple would be insane to license unless forced to.

That being said, what they are doing is legally sketchy and palpably anti-consumer, but that's not their concern, nor should it be.

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case...

I was not previously aware of this tactic. I find it reprehensible that Apple can deliberately omit relevant information, forcing Samsung to waste their own time introducing it.

I have two questions for you: 1) What relavent information has been left out? 2) assuming that it would only be relavent to Samsung's case, Why should they do that? That would be like complaining about a defendant not incriminating themself.

Exclusivity leads to stagnation, IP should work on the basic rule that at the very least an IP can be used and or sold at a cost of 60-80% of profit generated. The IP owner gets payed and there is little to no stagnation.

As a society we simply can not allow basic features to be locked up by (IMO extremely dubious) patents for long periods of time. Imagine if the mouse was patented and only one company could build them... there are an endless number of examples.

It's simply insane to give any company a monopoly on something like multi-touch (especially considering apple didn't even invent it).

In fact one of the most disgusting things is that apple patented a bunch of things that they didn't even event and that have tons of prior art. It's too bad we can't bring negligence charges against the patent office

It's actually a bit funny this was posted today. A few hours ago, I was considering whether the lawsuit might just be an attempt on Apple's part to strong arm Samsung into a cross-licensing agreement similar to the one with Microsoft.

Apple wants to be able to say they make products so good everyone copies them. This was an extremely annoying line of frequently parroted evangelism of the Mac platform well into the late 90's with respect to Windows 3.x / 9x.

On the other hand, Apple probably needs a good chunk of Samsung's IP related to the AXX series processors in order to take their business to TSMC. Starting with a stock ARM design plus their half of the Intrinsity optimizations would put them years behind in development even if they had started before 2 years ago when they bought Intrinsity.

Are there any lawyers in the house to comment on the 25 hour allotment for each side? It's a curious bit of detail I hadn't run across before. I know allotments are common, but I am interested in the amount in this case relative to similar magnitude cases.

Wow, I just read through the 90 page presentation Apple gave to Samsung in 2010. Apple thinks that they have an exclusive patent on ALL communication between software objects... and no I'm not kidding.

Apple is one of the most unethical and disgusting companies in modern history. They are approaching SCO territory

Wow, I just read through the 90 page presentation Apple gave to Samsung in 2010. Apple thinks that they have an exclusive patent on ALL communication between software objects... and no I'm not kidding.

Apple is one of the most unethical and disgusting companies in modern history. They are approaching SCO territory

Wow, I just read through the 90 page presentation Apple gave to Samsung in 2010. Apple thinks that they have an exclusive patent on ALL communication between software objects... and no I'm not kidding.

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case...

I was not previously aware of this tactic. I find it reprehensible that Apple can deliberately omit relevant information, forcing Samsung to waste their own time introducing it.

It's a gamble. They are assuming the jury doesn't need to hear it. If Samsung didn't ask about it, there was an equal chance tge jury could disregard the evidence as unproven. Samsung decided against that risk.

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case...

I was not previously aware of this tactic. I find it reprehensible that Apple can deliberately omit relevant information, forcing Samsung to waste their own time introducing it.

It's a gamble. They are assuming the jury doesn't need to hear it. If Samsung didn't ask about it, there was an equal chance tge jury could disregard the evidence as unproven. Samsung decided against that risk.

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case...

I was not previously aware of this tactic. I find it reprehensible that Apple can deliberately omit relevant information, forcing Samsung to waste their own time introducing it.

Normal courtroom tactics. All trial lawyers present only the things which are advantageous to their side. Equalizing for that is the entire purpose of cross examination.

Samsung can turn the tables when it is their turn to present. Might work to Samsung's advantage, as they have time now to look at their remaining allotment and craft their presentation to leverage this against Apple with better results, since both parties will be down to less than half their allotted time by then.

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case...

I was not previously aware of this tactic. I find it reprehensible that Apple can deliberately omit relevant information, forcing Samsung to waste their own time introducing it.

Normal courtroom tactics. All trial lawyers present only the things which are advantageous to their side. Equalizing for that is the entire purpose of cross examination.

Samsung can turn the tables when it is their turn to present. Might work to Samsung's advantage, as they have time now to look at their remaining allotment and craft their presentation to leverage this against Apple with better results, since both parties will be down to less than half their allotted time by then.

Exactly. It's not a criminal trial - the plaintiff is not required to disclose exculpatory evidence in civil proceedings.

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case...

I was not previously aware of this tactic. I find it reprehensible that Apple can deliberately omit relevant information, forcing Samsung to waste their own time introducing it.

That's not how things work at all. You ask the witness questions on direct examination that are helpful for your case. It's up to the other party, on cross-examination, to ask the questions that weaken your case. Samsung can't expect Apple to cross-examine its own witnesses.

As a society we simply can not allow basic features to be locked up by (IMO extremely dubious) patents for long periods of time. Imagine if the mouse was patented and only one company could build them... there are an endless number of examples.

It's simply insane to give any company a monopoly on something like multi-touch (especially considering apple didn't even invent it).

In fact one of the most disgusting things is that apple patented a bunch of things that they didn't even event and that have tons of prior art. It's too bad we can't bring negligence charges against the patent office

Negligence charges against the patent office... I'd buy into that class action.

Wow, I just read through the 90 page presentation Apple gave to Samsung in 2010. Apple thinks that they have an exclusive patent on ALL communication between software objects... and no I'm not kidding.

Apple is one of the most unethical and disgusting companies in modern history. They are approaching SCO territory

As I tell people, I don't use Apple products because I don't like they way they do business and the way they would manage my devices. I understand that I'm not a standard case, I'm a control-freak programmer that needs to know how everything about my data, and have absolute control over it. I'm not completely happy with having a Google account...

I would love to use a Macbook, especially a "retina-display" one, they seem solidly built and are decently specced. However I would put my tweaked Linux environment on it (not a custom kernel... just a specific set of apps + configurations, etc). I'm not certain that Apple would be open to that idea, and I don't want to support a history of opacity and control by buying a MBP anyway.

Other people can buy Apple, that's fine, but I won't because I don't like they way they handle their tech. I like open-source, I like having control of my platform, I like being beholden to no-one but myself when it comes to using my stuff. I dislike Windows for similar reasons, they way they keep parts of the OS fixed, but at least I can do almost whatever I want on it, and as a company, Microsoft tend to be on the "manage your own data" side (though they are moving away from this with Win8 and other consumer products).

Refusing to licence technology you've got a patent on should be ground for losing the patent. It goes against the very purpose of copyright and patents, to encourage innovation and the spread of ideas by ensuring people get paid for their stuff, it's not about giving people an absolute monopoly on it. Locking stuff down is the exact opposite of that.

When asked what Apple’s position on licensing this portion of is portfolio was, Forbes reported that Teskler testified, “It’s Apple’s position not to [license]… keeping in mind Apple does not want anyone to build a clone product. “

Apple’s lawyers also showed off shrewd time management skills in this case...

I was not previously aware of this tactic. I find it reprehensible that Apple can deliberately omit relevant information, forcing Samsung to waste their own time introducing it.

That's not how things work at all. You ask the witness questions on direct examination that are helpful for your case. It's up to the other party, on cross-examination, to ask the questions that weaken your case. Samsung can't expect Apple to cross-examine its own witnesses.

Hardly, Judge (if I can call that awful hack a judge) Koh allowed them to introduce evidence without a foundation, and in the form of an expert opinion... You are not supposed to. be able to introduce evidence without foundation... She lets Apple get away with everything, though. She is so obviously biased that it's sickening. At least this can form the basis of reversible error for appeal. I hope the appeals court is merciless in abusing that awful hack...

Refusing to licence technology you've got a patent on should be ground for losing the patent. It goes against the very purpose of copyright and patents, to encourage innovation and the spread of ideas by ensuring people get paid for their stuff, it's not about giving people an absolute monopoly on it. Locking stuff down is the exact opposite of that.

It's about ensuring somebody has incentive to invest in R&D by giving them a monopoly on the invention for a limited period of time in exchange for them sharing the invention and methods use with the world.

You may disagree with that, but stating that that is not how patents work is... patently false.

Apple is clearly trying to establish itself as the premier monopolist in the computer industry. It makes me feel good that I have never disgraced myself by using any of their products. The computer industry can only work by the traditional practice of cross licensing patents on fair and nondiscriminatory terms. Apple's rejection of this practice is the most destructive contribution to the industry in memory.

The problem is that sooner or later Apple will need to license a tech that isn't under FRAND rules. Its pretty much inevitable. Not only that, but this effectively screws all the previous tech companies who were encouraged to put all their eggs in the FRAND basket. Now Apple is using all that tech, but not reciprocating. And while Apple might be able to innovate quite a bit, the cell phone companies have decades of research up their sleeves. Apple might hurt Samsung bad for now, but it will come back to haunt them. The next time they step up to the negotiating table, they won't have such an easy time. Be a real shame if all of Apple's manufacturers decided to stop selling Apple parts.

I'm glad Apple doesn't want to license their patents because that would lend some legitimacy to them.

The idea that trivialities like simple visual effects, touch screen gestures and generic design criteria are patent worthy is an insult to any technically minded person. The patent examiners involved in these decisions should be tossed out, and the USPTO should be sued for the economic damage they've caused.

I'm sure the gadget worshipping business drones and baristas who populate Ars will show me the errors in my thinking.

The problem is that sooner or later Apple will need to license a tech that isn't under FRAND rules. Its pretty much inevitable. Not only that, but this effectively screws all the previous tech companies who were encouraged to put all their eggs in the FRAND basket. Now Apple is using all that tech, but not reciprocating. And while Apple might be able to innovate quite a bit, the cell phone companies have decades of research up their sleeves. Apple might hurt Samsung bad for now, but it will come back to haunt them. The next time they step up to the negotiating table, they won't have such an easy time. Be a real shame if all of Apple's manufacturers decided to stop selling Apple parts.

I actually think that may be the end game... at some point Apple may find itself with no willing manufacturers... esp if they cross a chinese company that has ties to the chinese govt

Something in this story made sense -- that Apple doesn't want knock-offs. IIRC, when Apple first came out in the '80s, nobody was thinking about putting PCs on every desktop. They made computers for a different audience, and made IBM realize that desktop PCs were a good idea. In a few years, there were a ton of PCs on the market, and Apple's was just the expensive one.

Now that they have a touch-screen phone, they want to be the sole provider of touch screen phones.

There's a big problem with this, and their whole case, that I'm surprised hasn't been addressed: Can you tell boom boxes apart, by brand? How about VCRs, DVD players, and Blu-ray players? Toasters? Microwaves? Televisions? Cars? Consumer electronics, and many consumer products in general, have to follow a similar design. If you want to make a touch screen pocket computer with a phone in it, there are some things you just have to do. I will agree that some of the crappy, first-generation Androids look like the iPhone, but even some first-generation Androids do widescreen, which is a pretty big difference between them and any iOS device (they're all 4:3 or 3:2). That is, anything with widescreen, and anything bigger than 4", is obviously not an iPhone. Another thing is widgets, or rows and columns with more than four icons. My home screen, for example, uses five rows and four columns, with five on the dock, although it has a 4x2 clock, and only four icons (folders, actually) across the bottom. Only an idiot could mistake it for an iPhone (the same kind of person who would call an Xbox a PlayStation; generally labeling all things in a class by the most popular).

Anyway, I can't fault Apple for trying. Android has been kicking their ass since 2010, which is when Android phones came out that matched the late 2011 iPhone 4S feature for feature, and it's probably cheaper to sue than to improve. But in any case, if they win, it sets a dangerous precedent for all kinds of electronics -- and their prices for consumers.

Refusing to licence technology you've got a patent on should be ground for losing the patent. It goes against the very purpose of copyright and patents, to encourage innovation and the spread of ideas by ensuring people get paid for their stuff, it's not about giving people an absolute monopoly on it. Locking stuff down is the exact opposite of that.

It's about ensuring somebody has incentive to invest in R&D by giving them a monopoly on the invention for a limited period of time in exchange for them sharing the invention and methods use with the world.

You may disagree with that, but stating that that is not how patents work is... patently false.

I don't think he's arguing that, it's more that the general idea is that patents allow you to profit from your innovation. It actually isn't there to protect big-company R&D is to protect against big company R&D.

The point of a patent is to give you a temporary monopoly on the specific solution to the problem. The issue is/was that many of the people solving these problems didn't have the resources to simultaneously produce the solution and protect themselves from bigger fish. So patents exist to allow inventors to either get producin' or profit from other people producing your solution. In this case however, Apple are clearly trying to use their patents to squash competition and protect their monopoly. Basically this is a case where the people that the system were supposed to protect against are using the system in reverse.

Nevermind that many of the patents involved in this industry have massively discouraged smaller companies from innovating (there is a study somewhere... can't find it but it is known that litigation disproportionately affects smaller companies). The litigious environment is poisonous to innovation at the moment, since it signals that anything you might do could open you to a suit from a company nobody has heard of, but has a patent that apparently covers your innovation.

Irrelevant of whether or not any of this is legal, it certainly isn't helpful. There certainly needs to be some changes to patent law to reflect the new market dynamics and to reflect changes in the relative costs of innovation (what was a massive investment for something amazing is relatively cheap, since failing in software is cheap and fast).

On the other hand, Apple probably needs a good chunk of Samsung's IP related to the AXX series processors in order to take their business to TSMC. Starting with a stock ARM design plus their half of the Intrinsity optimizations would put them years behind in development even if they had started before 2 years ago when they bought Intrinsity.

There is no Samsung IP in Apple's AXX series. Apple has been designing and laying out their own silicon for a very long time. Samsung has just been a foundry, nothing more. You may want to look at the history of ARM. Samsung isn't a part of it.

Apple is clearly trying to establish itself as the premier monopolist in the computer industry. It makes me feel good that I have never disgraced myself by using any of their products. The computer industry can only work by the traditional practice of cross licensing patents on fair and nondiscriminatory terms. Apple's rejection of this practice is the most destructive contribution to the industry in memory.

As opposed to the current premiere monopolists? You're saying MS traditionally licenses Windows patents under FRAND terms and you've never disgraced yourself with Intel products? You seem to be working hard to revise history.

I actually think that may be the end game... at some point Apple may find itself with no willing manufacturers... esp if they cross a chinese company that has ties to the chinese govt

Samsung isn't Chinese company.

I don't this he's saying Samsung is a Chinese company. I think he means that if Apple were to get on the bad side of a big Chinese company with ties to the central government, the Chinese government might make manufacturing products in china very difficult for Apple.

Something in this story made sense -- that Apple doesn't want knock-offs. IIRC, when Apple first came out in the '80s, nobody was thinking about putting PCs on every desktop. They made computers for a different audience, and made IBM realize that desktop PCs were a good idea. In a few years, there were a ton of PCs on the market, and Apple's was just the expensive one.

Now that they have a touch-screen phone, they want to be the sole provider of touch screen phones.

There's a big problem with this, and their whole case, that I'm surprised hasn't been addressed: Can you tell boom boxes apart, by brand? How about VCRs, DVD players, and Blu-ray players? Toasters? Microwaves? Televisions? Cars? Consumer electronics, and many consumer products in general, have to follow a similar design. If you want to make a touch screen pocket computer with a phone in it, there are some things you just have to do. I will agree that some of the crappy, first-generation Androids look like the iPhone, but even some first-generation Androids do widescreen, which is a pretty big difference between them and any iOS device (they're all 4:3 or 3:2). That is, anything with widescreen, and anything bigger than 4", is obviously not an iPhone. Another thing is widgets, or rows and columns with more than four icons. My home screen, for example, uses five rows and four columns, with five on the dock, although it has a 4x2 clock, and only four icons (folders, actually) across the bottom. Only an idiot could mistake it for an iPhone (the same kind of person who would call an Xbox a PlayStation; generally labeling all things in a class by the most popular).

Anyway, I can't fault Apple for trying. Android has been kicking their ass since 2010, which is when Android phones came out that matched the late 2011 iPhone 4S feature for feature, and it's probably cheaper to sue than to improve. But in any case, if they win, it sets a dangerous precedent for all kinds of electronics -- and their prices for consumers.

So you are saying that touch screen feature that Apple put into the iPhone is different than devices before it with touch screen feature. This is wrong because touch screen features have been in use several years before Apple. Apple did not invent it. Someone else did. Touch screen in any device is an "obvious technology." Apple is trying to say they invented touch screens.

Apple is trying to say they invented GUI for cellphones or smartphones. Also Apple is saying they created the name "smartphone." Sure smartphone started when the iPhone came out, but Blackberry is basically a smartphone although Blackberry did not call their phones as smartphones.

I can tell some little differences of brands for consumer electronics. Each brand has their own style or uniqueness. I can tell from a Sony VCR and a Panasonic VCR. A Samsung TV to a Sony TV. Samsung phones to Apple phones even though Samsung cellphones had the shape or the design of an iPhone long before pictures of the history of Samsung cellphones came out recently. Apple literally stole the shape of Samsung's cellphones. What I am reading now is it seems Apple wants Samsung to deter away creating any cellphones based on Samsung's cellphone designs. Though Apple iPhone 4 have made dramatic changes to its look, so people are now able to tell the difference compared to their competitors and I do not know why this case is ever started in the first place -- oh yeah now I know Apple hates competition because that is how Apple got beaten back long ago.

It is cheaper to compete than to sue. Suing costs several times more than competing. I can not imagine how much is costing Apple and Samsung in these lawsuits. Judge Posner already gave a tip to Samsung and Apple, but none wants believe what he said is true. Judge Lucy Koh have to take up the next lawsuit, but she seems very bias to Apple and I thought judges should be neutral.

"Apple gave Samsung a presentation, noting that "[b]ecause Samsung is a strategic supplier to Apple, we are prepared to offer a royalty-bearing license for this category of device."

IBM and Microsoft have managed to resolve their patent claims without getting involved in the kind of legal action that Apple seems to be engaged in with several different companies. The record Apple is establishing suggests that their goal is to patent the apple as the trademark of corporate greed.